| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2007 04:57:16 PM · #26 |
| perhaps more interesting photos and challenges should be better! Often I vote in evry challenge but always I find the same photos. cats in every way,flowers in every way, still life with the same glasses...... dogs..... perhaps more interesting challenge and a bit af fantasy from the users help the voters :) |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 05:17:43 PM · #27 |
Two stage voting process: This first is a simple yes/no for passing onto the next stage. Every person is given a random 10% of the entries and must vote on them all at full res, no thumbnails.
The second then contains only the cream of the crop. Fewer and better images to vote on = more voters! =)
Of course, this idea is flawed in many ways, but hey, this is an ideas thread, right? |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 05:19:37 PM · #28 |
How's about if you seriously look at, consider, comment and vote on lots of images, you get to become a better photographer with more insight in to what works for you and doesn't work for you.
Naw, that'd be a silly reward. Never mind me. |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 05:19:59 PM · #29 |
Do away with the minimum... I don't even start voting when I know I probably won't get through the minimum number for it to be counted. Especially when there are hundreds of entries. If people say it's cherry picking, than so be it. That's they idea anyway, to pick out what people think are the best. If the best get votes and the rest don't, that says the same thing as those that got scored low.
Put a limit on the number of entries. Make the cutoff as the first 100 or first 150. It's hard to find even the good ones when you have to wade through hundreds of so-so images.
I know neither of these will happen, but you did ask for input. To be honest, I think the decline is just part of the normal cyclic nature of forums like this. I can't believe there weren't down turns in the past and then things built back up.
Unless it's because the SC's have gotten better at catching multiple voters and friends and family voting that it's taken the down turn. ;D
Mike
|
|
|
|
11/09/2007 05:24:59 PM · #30 |
I don't see any way that a time based quota system could be either fair, or improve the quality of entries. You either have people submitting early, to get a slot - thus rushing their entries, or submitting early and changing it out early, thus just entering placeholders and being unfair to those in other timezones.
I suppose some sort of qualification might work. Or a lottery.
Message edited by author 2007-11-09 17:25:54. |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 05:29:40 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
How's about if you seriously look at, consider, comment and vote on lots of images, you get to become a better photographer with more insight in to what works for you and doesn't work for you.
Naw, that'd be a silly reward. Never mind me. |
Come on Gordon, that's like trying to tell people the reward for eating well and exercising is a long and healthy life..its just too remote to fathom! Instant gratification is where its at. |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 05:32:15 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I suppose some sort of qualification might work. |
That's what I was getting at. The mechanism isn't really important.
A second round of voting would be quite tedious to implement, and has many complications.
Instead of two rounds, a simpler qualifier might be a lot of fun, especially if the qualifier changed month to month. I.E., we'll take only the top 150 entries sorted by:
- The average of your last 3 challenges
- Number of days until your birthday
- Number of days you've been a member
- Your average vote cast
- Number of ribbons/HM's
- Number of challenges entered in the last month
But I do lean toward those qualifiers which reward higher scoring photogs. Makes the entries more interesting, and it's by definition "what the voters want to see". |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 05:34:54 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by smurfguy:
I.E., we'll take only the top 150 entries sorted by:
But I do lean toward those qualifiers which reward higher scoring photogs. Makes the entries more interesting, and it's by definition "what the voters want to see". |
I think you have to qualify people to enter, before they invest time taking the picture. Otherwise we'll direct all the complaining forum threads to you... |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 05:35:32 PM · #34 |
Either force people to vote or suck it up and live with people not voting. What else can be done?
Personally I would rather not enter challenges than have to vote through a 600 entry challenge. 100-150 entries or so, no problem. Anything more than that is an unenjoyable waste of my time. |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 05:36:20 PM · #35 |
I'm not sure that I agree with the premise of this thread that we need to improve the quantity of votes. Rather, I think we need to improve the quality of the votes. To do that, we might consider ways to make the voting experience more meaningful, and get the voters to take their votes more seriously.
Here are two off the cuff suggestions towards that end. I\'m sure there are many more, and better , ideas out there:
1. Divide challenge entries up into groups of 50, and randomly assign each member 50 images to vote on, with a suggestion to spread them out in a bell curve, using all the numbers between 1 and 10.
2. Randomly assign voters to challenges, kind of like jury duty. Each challenge is decided by a group of 50 or 100 voters. Failure to vote on all the entries = 1 DQ (with some process set up to decline jury duty if you\'re too busy, and some limits on how often you can do so).
Under any scenario, everyone should still be able to view and comment on all the images. Only the voting would be limited.
Let\'s face it: within the first 20 votes or so, you know whether your entry is going to be in the 4s, 5s, 6s (or, I suppose, the 7s, but I\'ve yet to experience that!). The next 100 votes or so bounce you around by a few percentage points, maybe within a range of +/-0.5 points. The change is different at the extremes -- low 4s tend to move up to the high 4 range, high 6s tend to be pushed down to the low 6 range. By the end of the week, its moving in increments of a few hundredths of a point. In short, the voting system seems to push all entries towards a 5. More votes don't really change things all that much.
I think the problem occurs, if there is a problem, if its the same people voting on all the challenges. That would unfairly put the burden on a small number of users, and run the risk of their view of photography becoming the default view of what DPC considers to be a good photo (not that those who don't vote have any ground to complain). However, I don't see any evidence that this is what\'s happening. Hence my suggestion that we look at improving the quality, not the quantity, of the vote.
Message edited by author 2007-11-09 18:26:35. |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 05:36:48 PM · #36 |
How about letting non-paying members vote in member only challenges? I realize that point in not letting us submit pictures, but why can't we vote in them? I would vote if I could. I don't see why people are so worried about voting for a large number of images, you have a whole week to do it, and when if you go through without commenting it goes pretty quick. I would think a thread like this discussing ways to get people to comment more would be be a good idea.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2007 05:40:08 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by smurfguy:
Originally posted by Gordon:
I suppose some sort of qualification might work. |
That's what I was getting at. The mechanism isn't really important.
A second round of voting would be quite tedious to implement, and has many complications.
Instead of two rounds, a simpler qualifier might be a lot of fun, especially if the qualifier changed month to month. I.E., we'll take only the top 150 entries sorted by:
- The average of your last 3 challenges
- Number of days until your birthday
- Number of days you've been a member
- Your average vote cast
- Number of ribbons/HM's
- Number of challenges entered in the last month
But I do lean toward those qualifiers which reward higher scoring photogs. Makes the entries more interesting, and it's by definition "what the voters want to see". |
So us users who are just starting out and trying to learn never make it into a challenge, thus can never get our qualifications up to snuff, so we never get to have pictures voted on? How hard is it to see a bad picture, or even a mediocre picture and give it a score? This site should be about learning not about who has the best pictures, and lets just see theirs over and over again.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2007 05:41:48 PM · #38 |
I agree with Mike when he say that the decline is normal for the forums. but seriously find a solution is very hard. qualifications is a fascinating idea but many members, and I between these, never could enter in a challenge, this probably discourage the participation, selfdsq for low scores come from the depression for the low scores. to improve the quality of the entries is a problem everywhere and the solution could be find only with the right stimulus. I think that the technical aspect is very important but often there are photo that are perfect under technical aspect but with few ideas. A first step could be a biggest part of the score to the idea. this oblige to shot an original image if you want win a challenge.
P.S. I hope that this is understandable |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 05:42:28 PM · #39 |
Not sure if this has been mentioned, but what if we had a cap put on and only allow a certain number of submissions to challenges, specifially Free Studies? It seems that the smaller challenges tend to have a higher vote count as opposed to larger challenges...just my two cents for what its worth.
That or maybe a "Get Out and Vote" campaign like they have for elections...
Another thought: Make it where if you submit to a challenge, you have to vote in the challenge or your score will be pentalized by a certain percentage...
Michael
Message edited by author 2007-11-09 17:47:08. |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 05:44:30 PM · #40 |
Announce the topics an extra week in advance, you get to pre-register for those that you are interested in. 100,150, whatever get approved and notified they are in.
Fail to submit after enough qualifying chances and your chances of getting in again fall/ get removed for a month or two, etc.
Could be tied to some sort of token/ barter/ reward feedback mechanism, but that seems overkill. A simple lottery, plus an extra week of thinking/ shooting time would up the quality and reduce the quantity.
Course its a totally different site then, but... |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 05:55:09 PM · #41 |
I don't have any suggestions, but I've been analyzing some of my stats for my first year and here are my number of votes received.
 |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 06:07:20 PM · #42 |
Currently everyone must vote on 20% of a challenge for it to count - whether you have an entry or not.
Why don't we make it that if you have entered the challenge you must vote on 20% of the challenge or your entry will be removed.
Maybe those that have entered should vote on a greater percentage of entries eg 33%. And we could throw in that those entered must also comment on 10% of the entries. Or you submission is removed.
Entering a challenge would therefore come at a price - a voting/comment price.
If you don't think you can manage the voting/comments, don't enter.
Don't hammer me for this idea - it's just an idea. |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 06:09:43 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by RamblinR:
Currently everyone must vote on 20% of a challenge for it to count - whether you have an entry or not.
Why don't we make it that if you have entered the challenge you must vote on 20% of the challenge or your entry will be removed.
Maybe those that have entered should vote on a greater percentage of entries eg 33%. And we could throw in that those entered must also comment on 10% of the entries. Or you submission is removed.
Entering a challenge would therefore come at a price - a voting/comment price.
If you don't think you can manage the voting/comments, don't enter.
Don't hammer me for this idea - it's just an idea. |
This is one of the best suggestions I have seen yet. It doesn't hurt us that are still working on making our pictures better. The only thing I can see is that some people don't feel right about voting in a challenge they entered. But for me this is fine, because I already do this.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2007 06:11:44 PM · #44 |
| A free month membership to the person that votes the most each month. Or something like that... |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 06:14:03 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
A free month membership to the person that votes the most each month. Or something like that... |
I guess Alan Freed would have a lifetime membership by now, and I wouldn't have to worry too much about my next renewal.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 06:14:50 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
A free month membership to the person that votes the most each month. Or something like that... |
I guess Alan Freed would have a lifetime membership by now, and I wouldn't have to worry too much about my next renewal.
Ray |
There ya go but it might spur some more competition for you guys.
Anyway all I had was $.02 to toss into this discussion...
:-)
Message edited by author 2007-11-09 18:19:52. |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 06:22:25 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by travis_cooper:
Originally posted by RamblinR:
Currently everyone must vote on 20% of a challenge for it to count - whether you have an entry or not.
Why don't we make it that if you have entered the challenge you must vote on 20% of the challenge or your entry will be removed.
Maybe those that have entered should vote on a greater percentage of entries eg 33%. And we could throw in that those entered must also comment on 10% of the entries. Or you submission is removed.
Entering a challenge would therefore come at a price - a voting/comment price.
If you don't think you can manage the voting/comments, don't enter.
Don't hammer me for this idea - it's just an idea. |
This is one of the best suggestions I have seen yet. It doesn't hurt us that are still working on making our pictures better. The only thing I can see is that some people don't feel right about voting in a challenge they entered. But for me this is fine, because I already do this. |
I don't understand the mentality of not voting if you enter a challenge (but that's just me). Maybe I should enter every challenge and then I won't have to vote at all - doesn't seem right some how.
I have the opposite approach. I try to ensure that I vote on every shot in a challenge if I have entered it (took ages to vote on the last free study). I think I may have missed doing this once or maybe twice but I have usually done more than the 20% required.
If I want people to vote on my pic in a challenge I figure it is only fair to vote on theirs. I'm not so good with the comments but I'm working on that. |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 06:23:43 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by smurfguy:
Two stage voting process: This first is a simple yes/no for passing onto the next stage. Every person is given a random 10% of the entries and must vote on them all at full res, no thumbnails.
The second then contains only the cream of the crop. Fewer and better images to vote on = more voters! =)
Of course, this idea is flawed in many ways, but hey, this is an ideas thread, right? |
LOL, we have enough trouble getting people to vote.. now you want them to vote twice? |
|
|
|
11/09/2007 06:26:02 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by RamblinR:
Originally posted by travis_cooper:
Originally posted by RamblinR:
Currently everyone must vote on 20% of a challenge for it to count - whether you have an entry or not.
Why don't we make it that if you have entered the challenge you must vote on 20% of the challenge or your entry will be removed.
Maybe those that have entered should vote on a greater percentage of entries eg 33%. And we could throw in that those entered must also comment on 10% of the entries. Or you submission is removed.
Entering a challenge would therefore come at a price - a voting/comment price.
If you don't think you can manage the voting/comments, don't enter.
Don't hammer me for this idea - it's just an idea. |
This is one of the best suggestions I have seen yet. It doesn't hurt us that are still working on making our pictures better. The only thing I can see is that some people don't feel right about voting in a challenge they entered. But for me this is fine, because I already do this. |
I don't understand the mentality of not voting if you enter a challenge (but that's just me). Maybe I should enter every challenge and then I won't have to vote at all - doesn't seem right some how.
I have the opposite approach. I try to ensure that I vote on every shot in a challenge if I have entered it (took ages to vote on the last free study). I think I may have missed doing this once or maybe twice but I have usually done more than the 20% required.
If I want people to vote on my pic in a challenge I figure it is only fair to vote on theirs. I'm not so good with the comments but I'm working on that. |
I agree, I have always felt that I can't expect people to vote for me if I don't vote for them. I have only been here a few weeks, but I have voted on 100% of the entries so far, well the open challenges anyway. Apparently there are people out there that don't vote when they enter a challenge, otherwise we should see the same number of votes as entries, or close to it.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2007 06:26:48 PM · #50 |
| I like Marie's idea. It's out of the box for this crew and that is exactly what we need. Make it a privilege to be able to enter challenges and get voted on, commented on, not a right. This would foster an even better learning experience for this site (it's already good). I like many of the ideas, but Marie's really changes the dynamic and that just might be what we need! |
|
